School lotteries - the fairest way forward?

School admissions is a hot topic; one that excites, panics and infuriates many parents. But what's the solution to the issue of over-subscribed schools? Today it's reported that more and more local authorities are considering lotteries as the answer. Perhaps this really is the fairest way.

Earlier this week I wrote on applying to primary school and on private versus state schools. The response to both those posts demonstrated the palpable feeling of fear around these topics. Parents are desperate to find the best options for their children. However, all too often they are finding that the choice (despite the government's commitments on this subject) is not theirs to make.

Many parents are genuinely angry that the great school at the bottom of the road or within walking distance is closed to their children. This may be because it's a faith school, or because the school has become so popular, you need to live within around 50 metres of its door. Such schools often end up with very a rich cohort of pupils, who get in because of their geographical location. House prices are pushed up because of catchment area demand and the school becomes covertly selective.

Then there are the other ways to "play the system". Some parents give up and go private, others lie about their address, find religion or move (often renting) to get into a good school. Local authorities know this, and are getting wise, but it still happens. Still, I can't blame my LA for demanding copies of your most recent council tax statement and two utility bills to be sent with new school applications. If your address has changed in the last two years, they are even asking for proof of purchase or rental of the new property, and fascinatingly, "disposal of the previous property." Perhaps this is a new way to catch out those clever parents who rent a property on a short-term basis to try and get into a good school.

Of course, all these things only happen to the good over-subscribed schools, and there's the problem. Some say these schools should be expanded, but that's often not practical. Others criticise, but don't come up with solutions. Others say that there's only one fair response - the school lottery.

The idea of holding a lottery for school places is a scary one for many - and that seems to be the main argument against it. All those people who bought houses right next to that excellent school, and paid a huge premium for the privilege, might find that their children don't get in. And so might those who borrowed their grandmother's or a friend's house to register the address. But others would get in, in a fair and transparent way.

Parents say that they want a choice, and the choice would be there as much as it is at the moment - parents should choose the schools they want, and know that if their choice is over-subscribed, the decision about who gets in is made via a lottery. What could be fairer?

The idea of putting the words "education" and "lottery" together just sound wrong. But in practice, they might just work. Yes, there is a possible environmental concern - children who live further away might get in and have to drive there rather than walk - but this could be got round by still having some kind of catchment area. I also think that the siblings rule should stay, at least for primary school. Otherwise it will be a nightmare for parents. But if you can suggest a fairer policy for everyone, I'd like to know about it.

I'm not saying that this is a perfect scenario, or that I like it: I would like everyone to be able to get their children into the school they want. But I'm living in the real world and this might just be the best, and fairest solution we have.

Comments

[Julia Champness-Brooks]

Referring back to the original article about lotteries, I note the comments about house prices increasing near the more popular schools.

I live in Brighton and 14 yeaers ago when I was pregnant I realised my child needed educating and planned how to buy into the area where I wanted my child to be schooled. It meant going without family holidays and living in building sites for nearly 6 years to achieve this. It is called planning.
I am working class - I work my butt of to provide for my children. I had all this planning wiped away in less than a year. The motivation for this was not to provide fairer admissions, but to secure a labour council seat in an area that was at best ropey. The residents who were reported to be pushing for this lottery were all new to the town (moved inthe last 5 - 8 years) and simply hadn't done their research.
Even the labour concillor on the decisions panel was against it. (She was removed by her party the night before the decision).

So please explain to me how the lottery system is fair, and whether there is any room in local government to promote responsible parenting and planning!!

[Cathy]

No, I don't think I want to continue this discussion, thanks very much. But let me conclude by assuring you that I personally am extremely conscientious, committed and enthusiastic about what I do for a living. Perhaps I need to learn to be a little less sensitive, too, and accept that I'll always be tarred with the same brush as less professional colleagues.

[Gipsy]

that was one of the areas that I asked about at the schools I visited. Not that I assume son will be above average, talented or gifted! But it does say a lot about the school, I think. And yes, two of the three schools that we have chosen to apply to have specific programmes in place for the children in the top percentiles as well as those that are struggling. I'm not sure about the third as we missed the official tour and were only able to have a general look around. However, it is a good school. Maybe you've just had a few bad experiences?

[TSM]

Cathy - so would you like to address the point I made about bright children being bored enough already in the classroom without ridding the curriculum of some of the elements which are of use to them so as to concentrate on areas in which they are already above the level required?

FYI my profession is one of those on which everyone has an uninformed opinion, especially in the current economic climate. I also have a family and group of friends composed almost entirely of teachers. And a husband who is a teacher. And I have the bitter experience of having been a very very above average pupil in a comprehensive school with mixed ability classes. All this means that while I do appreciate that teachers attract a load of flack from quarters which would be best remaining silent, I am also very aware that the majority of teachers - the vast majority - didn't have the experience of being far and away the brightest child in the school themselves (you mentioned you went to Oxbridge, so maybe *you* did. But most teachers didn't).
I also know what matters most to teachers - and, like it or not, achieving the set targets and satisfying Ofsted is right up there (again, maybe not so much for supply teachers). It is also my experience that my teacher relatives and friends do care more about the children that are struggling. And I don't blame them. I would, in their shoes, too. Because most brighter kids have parents who will look out for them. But it's a bit galling when we find ourselves doing stuff the teachers should be doing, but don't have the time or the inclination to do - like stretching our children and ensuring they have appropriate books etc - to then be criticised for being pushy or 'not understanding' when actually we understand only too well, it is the teacher who doesn't understand how corrosive and disheartening and, strangely, guilt inducing, being constantly bored in the classroom can be.

[Cathy]

TSM (again):

On reflection my last was rather ungracious. Sorry. But you might like to put yourself in my shoes: I don't know what you do for a living but I'm sure you do it very well. I happen to be a very good teacher (I know that because I'm supply and the phone never stops ringing). Imagine how it feels when, for 25 years, one hears nothing but criticism and people without expertise - and I'm sorry, but three children doesn't really compare with over 1000, and I have the three of my own to boot - telling me how they could do my job so much better. It makes one really rather angry after a while. I don't think you'd enjoy sweeping generalisations about your profession from lay people, however competent in their own field.

Anyway, I must away and explain to my son's college tutors what they're doing wrong.

[Cathy]

TSM:

'I'm sure you don't'

That's right. I don't.

'adopting a mocking tone when referring to them (and their parents) doesn't really help in any way - and it certainly doesn't instill confidence in the teacher's ability to, you know, teach their child, in the parents.'

Clearly I need to apologise again. I was under the impression that this was a rather inconsquential forum for the free exchange of views, not Parents' Evening.

[TSM]

Cathy:

'I'm afraid I've had my share of moments with utterly hideously badly-behaved children whose parents feel their behaviour can be justified by their genius-level intelligence and hence boredom!'

There is no excuse for bad behaviour in the classroom. Teachers should never have to put up with that. However if a child is bored, once the issue of bad behaviour has been addressed, the issue of the bad teaching remains. If a bright child isn't being stretched, stimulated or engaged enough (and even more crucially, if such a child isn't having a work ethic instilled) then that is the fault of the teacher. It's not hard to give the bright kids something extra to do - more work sheets, or give them a book to read and write a report on - just don't leave them twiddling their thumbs. I'm sure you don't - but many teachers do, especially at this time of year in years 2 and 6.

Schools aren't really designed for the pupils at the edge of the bell curve. And adopting a mocking tone when referring to them (and their parents) doesn't really help in any way - and it certainly doesn't instill confidence in the teacher's ability to, you know, teach their child, in the parents.

I have 3 children one of whom is at a different point in the ability spectrum from the other two. This doesn't make me unique I'm sure but it does give me more perspective on the different types of teacher. Some of the ones who were best for my oldest child are not so good for child 2, some of the ones who have been less helpful for child 1 have been better for child 2. Interestingly the only truly dreadful teacher for child 1 was also the only truly dreadful teacher for child 2. Although apparently said teacher does very well with children who are bang slap on the middle with no annoying additional needs like frequent periods in hospital or being bright.

Anyway - I think boredom in class is an issue and it should be addressed by the teacher.

[Cathy]

TSM:

'I take it you aren't trying to imply I was badly brought up?'

Oh dear - I'm very sorry. That was rude of me. What I should have said was 'too well brought up to show it'! I'm afraid I've had my share of moments with utterly hideously badly-behaved children whose parents feel their behaviour can be justified by their genius-level intelligence and hence boredom!

I was away with the fairies, too ... that must be why I was forever getting lost in a five-class infant school. Still happens on occasion.

[TSM]

Cathy - I was frequently bored to tears at school - or I would have been had it not been for my internal 'life of the mind' (ie being able to go off with the fairies at the drop of a hat, while waiting for the rest of the class to finish whatever work we were doing and for the teacher to move on). I take it you aren't trying to imply I was badly brought up?

I have to say I don't see any difference between topic work and the buildings strand the year ones are doing at the moment (or were doing before half term).

[Cathy]

TSM:

'Cathy - the problem is the really bright kids - who are bored enough as it is by the NC - would be even more bored rigid if all they did all day every day was the 3 Rs to the standard expected of 7 year olds. The only way your suggestion would work would be if teachers were prepared to let the really bright ones work at their own pace and progress as their ability allowed. And that just doesn't happen.'

I probably didn't make myself very clear. I'm certainly not advocating holding anyone back to any hypothetical minimum standard. I didn't mean ONLY the 3Rs (I was feeling a bit hyperbolic after an attempted mauling on another thread). But when I began teaching, aeons ago, we coped perfectly well with the brighter kids by teaching through topic work. Come to think of it, it woked for me, back in the 1960s. I could read at three and was never bored at school. I was far too well brought up for that!

[TSM]

Cathy - the problem is the really bright kids - who are bored enough as it is by the NC - would be even more bored rigid if all they did all day every day was the 3 Rs to the standard expected of 7 year olds. The only way your suggestion would work would be if teachers were prepared to let the really bright ones work at their own pace and progress as their ability allowed. And that just doesn't happen.

I have 3 children. The oldest has just passed the 11+ (we live in an area were there are just 2 grammar schools in a radius of about 70 miles, so you'll appreciate how competitive that exam was), the middle child is averagely bright but due to being functionally deaf for two years at KS 1 while undergoing lots of (ultimately succesful but boy did it take a long time) medical treatment) is still a bit behind some of his classmates (he sits towards the bottom of the middle group, should probably be at the top of the middle group, unlikely to ever be in the top group but who knows). The youngest - just 5 and a half, the youngest child in year 1 - is a free reader and can do more in maths than KS 1 requires. The only schooling she gets at school is the interesting stuff round the edges - the history, the music, the art the science. In those subjects, while she might know stuff from reading books and having 2 siblings who have done this before, she isn't especially ahead of her peers, so she can join in, feel part of the class, and develop a work ethic. It was the same for the oldest child. If you take away the extra stuff, you sacrifice any investment the ones who have cracked the 3 Rs at that level will have in the schooling process. And actually, I don't think it would be sensible to accelerate them further at that age - let them get the roundedness that exposure to history, geography, art, music and languages brings.

[Cathy]

Here goes:

This is how I'd sort out the mess that is primary education.

First, invest wisely. That means paying for managers to support head teachers so they can do what motivates them - teach. Just occasionally. Even if it means I'm talking myself out of work! Invest in proper support for challenging pupils so that they can more easily be excluded to the benefit of those who want (and are able) to learn. Offer bonuses to attract the best teachers to the toughest schools. The roughest school I know of scored 1s ('Outstandings') across the board at its last Ofsted, thanks to marvellous leadership and superb teaching. I'm talking drive-by shootings here, so all credit to them.

Drastically reduce the National Curriculum at Key Stage 1 so the teachers can concentrate on the 3 Rs. All children of normal intelligence should be able to read by 8 but teachers haven't got the time to teach reading properly. They're too busy getting six-year-olds to draw historical buildings (how I spent yesterday afternoon - not my fault, nor the school's, but the NC's).

Do all that and then before very long you can confidently send every child to the local school. Well, it worked before, didn't it? I'm still going to duck behind the parapet, though.

[Cathy]

Whimsey:

'Alternatively, I'd just give parents back the tax money that is their proportion of the schools budget, and let them spend it as they want on private schools, and let Adam Smith do his stuff. I belive the per capita for each child is around the five thousand pouds a year mark (it varies for age, doesn't it?). That would be a nice sum to have at one's disposal to spend on your child's education.'

But what about the children of feckless parents? Should they be penalised and lose any possible chance in life? How very sad that no one seems to care much about them. I was brought up to believe that a country's level of civilisation could be judged by how it treated its weaker members. Were my maternal grandparents wrong to dedicate their working lives to slum schools? I'm proud of them, actually.

[Cathy]

Caroline:

'So... why not?'

Because you might then have the indignity of a child from a nice middle-class family being put in the bottom set along with the scum of the earth, that's why! And that would never do.

Seriously ... no one really knows what a Reception child is potentially capable of. I have a cousin who didn't speak till three, spent the first few years at school doing absolutely nothing, and now has a DPhil from Oxford and another degree from Harvard.

My daughter went to nursery and Reception in a very mixed area indeed and is now not only a very high achiever but a delightful person and, thankfully, not a snob either.

[Cathy]

Whimsey:

'This seems to beg the fundamental question of what determines ability in the first place. Are the rising fives possessed of an unchangeable 'ability level' that will remain constant all their lives, or can those children who seem to be of 'lower ability' be brought up to the level of those with 'higher ability'.

I think unless we can get some kind of agreement on that point, we can't really get to grips with whether setting is a good or bad idea.

Also, of course, as I referenced earlier, what kind of abilities are we talking about here? Do we 'set for art?', 'set for music', 'set for sport', etc etc? Even within the traditional academic abilities, there can be a huge range, with some children showing 'high ability' at, say, languages, but 'low ability' at maths.

I'm not against setting per se, but I think it needs firstly to be pretty detailed in terms of the precise kinds of abilities (eg, maths, languages, art etc), and there must be the underlying presumption (say my leftie liberal views!), that no child (no human being) is inherently 'less able', unless we are talking about very specific medical conditions.

ToTo me, the educational challenge is to discover what each individual child is 'best at' and focus on developing that ability whilst still attempting to give them the 'basics' that they will need for everyday life (eg, maths for handling their financial affairs, etc)'

I couldn't agree more and wish I could have said that so well ;)

[j]

Caroline, I can see how that would work for bigger schools. Our primary did have two form entry for infants and juniors-two classes of Y1 and y2 mixed, followed by 2 classes of y3 and y4 mixed. Great in the first year as you could do work a year ahead, bad for the second year when you had all the little ones with you and you'd done the work last year anyway.

So they did effectively stream my three kids, but only by setting different work for each child, and it relied on them all behaving nicely and doing what they were told. Which sort of happened. So it was fine.

but they would never have had the resources to staff a formal setting system- I think this is quite a typical size of school, by no means a tiny rural school but a normal sized primary in a major city.

[Gipsy]

I'm sure that overall Australia's education system is working better than the UKs (bear in mind they've a smaller population, and the government has had a policy of reducing class sizes in the past). However it isn't perfect. A friend of mine has left teaching after a horrendous couple of years at a high school in Melbourne. The violence (pupils assaulting other pupils and teachers - he had two black eyes in the last term for example, plus the violence heaped on the same pupils by their own parents) eventually wore him out. I think that he had the equivalent of 'chavs' in their school district.

[whimsey]

PDEV - I think the only 'superiority' of private education is that private schools can select (and eject!) their pupils on the grounds of their behaviour. In the UK, the government makes it extremely hard, not to say expensive (doing all the application and paperwork) to kick badly behaved children out of school. Most teachers know that if they could just get rid of around 10% of the pupiles, the 'head cases' they would just about sort to the problem, because without the head cases the rest of the class can get on with the business of being educated.

In the UK, the government WILL NOT PAY for the special schooling that severely mentally and psycholgoically disturbed children NEED to stop them going the same way as their own parents. These children are toxic - to themselves, as well as all the others - and educating them into something approaching a 'normal' human being just costs more than educating a 'normal' child (I talk in psycological terms of 'normality', ie, not dysfunctional).

If Australia has cracked the problem of pupil behaviour, then that is fantastic, and I'd like to know how! I assume it takes real will power by the government - and resourcing!

[Pdev]

Whimsey, You are assuming govt education is inferior to private education and that-in many cases in Australia this is certainly not the case. Many govt schools perform better than private and religious schools. The expensive private schools actually sieve out students that will not perform well at VCE or offer scholarships to high performing students to keep the schools' VCE averages up. Aspirational here means the working class that live in mC Mansions trying to seperate themselves from the less well off in the suburbs.

[whimsey]

But PDEV, surely every parent should belong to the aspirational class? I can't imagine a 'good parent' (by anyone's definition) NOT wanting their child to do well in life. How can you NOT aspire for them?

Tossing children out on to the scrap heap of life, unskilled, uneducated, ignorant and expecting nothing than to do a dead end job for dead end money or, worse, no job at all, is hardly something that any civilised country should consider tolerable in the least.

One of the reasons that the children/descendents of recent immigrant families to the west work so hard (possibly too hard, but that's another issue!) is because within their own families' living memory they know just how dire life is in the third world.

In the pampered west we assume someone will keep us fed and housed, even if it's in bleak conditions. If all school can do is 'educate' yet another section of children to want and expect nothing more from life than living on benefits or a dead end job, then it's failing completely in its responsibility to the next generation.

[Pdev]

I am amazed as an Australian at the hostility and class divide evident is a number of these posts. I'm not sure I have a firm idea of what Chav culture actually is but I'm assuming working class, public housing-can someone explain it?? What worries me is that Australia as a whole is heading towards the situation that exists in Britain and the US where class division in schools is the norm. This has been intensified by the Howard govt subsiding low cost private schools which gives the aspirational class a chance to jettison public education.

[JM]

Caroline - I think the idea of setting within state schools has some merit but it does not address the other reasons why middle-class parents choose specific schools.

The behaviour of some of the children (and even worse their parents), at the schoolgates at the less sought-after school in our inner-London suburb, is enough to make even the most liberal minded middle class parents flee elsewhere (usually into a Faith or Private school).

I have seen appalling examples of Mothers shouting and hitting their kids, and using language that I don't want my children to hear. The pupils at our local comp are quite franky so intimidating that locals can no longer use the buses in the hour after school finishes.

I will do whatever it takes to remove my children from this environment.

[whimsey]

This seems to beg the fundamental question of what determines ability in the first place. Are the rising fives possessed of an unchangeable 'ability level' that will remain constant all their lives, or can those children who seem to be of 'lower ability' be brought up to the level of those with 'higher ability'.

I think unless we can get some kind of agreement on that point, we can't really get to grips with whether setting is a good or bad idea.

Also, of course, as I referenced earlier, what kind of abilities are we talking about here? Do we 'set for art?', 'set for music', 'set for sport', etc etc? Even within the traditional academic abilities, there can be a huge range, with some children showing 'high ability' at, say, languages, but 'low ability' at maths.

I'm not against setting per se, but I think it needs firstly to be pretty detailed in terms of the precise kinds of abilities (eg, maths, languages, art etc), and there must be the underlying presumption (say my leftie liberal views!), that no child (no human being) is inherently 'less able', unless we are talking about very specific medical conditions.

To me, the educational challenge is to discover what each individual child is 'best at' and focus on developing that ability whilst still attempting to give them the 'basics' that they will need for everyday life (eg, maths for handling their financial affairs, etc)

[Caroline]

Sure J, happy to explain. Here in London, many (most?) primary schools are two or three form entry. Instead of having two or three mixed ability classes, the intake would simply be split into two or three classes by ability. Within those classes, there would of course continue to be individually set work, as you describe - but each teacher would have a narrower ability band to deal with.

I acknowledge that single-form entry schools would be a challenge. Outside of rural areas (where schools seem to function reasonably well anyway), perhaps one could twin up two single-form entry schools to form a 2-form entry infants and a 2-form entry juniors.

What I see happening in my bit of North London is this: parents fight like mad to get into those primary schools which are 'purely' middle class. The reason is that parents fear - rightly or not - that pupils from more modest backgrounds would be lower-achieving. This would hold back the level of the school, slowing down their children's progress. I do think that setting by ability would address those concerns, making parents willing to send their children to a broader range of state schools, and lessening pressure on the current favourites.

[j]

Caroline, could I understand the way that would operate?

what I'm used to is a school with one class per year, each taught by a sole teacher plus one TA.

She already would set different work for different children, but I dont think she would have space or staff to put them in separate rooms- just at separate tables doing streamed work. Which she already does.

What could she do differently? and if she were coping with rowdy children all in one room, how would that operate as a separate stream?

[Caroline]

Good. Now that we've put middle class warfare behind us, what about setting by ability beginning in Reception? What parents seem to worry about is their children being held back by lower-achievers. Let's face it, competition to get into good state/faith schools is largely about placing one's children among as high-achieving a peer group as possible. Setting by ability in every school, as early as possible, gives parents what they want - if their children are bright enough to make it into one of the upper sets.

Certainly, the top set in leafy neighborhoods might have a different level from one in grittier ones - but it might well be a start at giving bright kids the challenges and slower ones the reinforcement in basics they each need.

Also, in the Upper West Side in New York, public (state) schools which introduced gifted and talented programs (effectively a top set) at elementary (primary) school level quickly became popular with the middle classes, reversing the exodus from state education.

So... why not?

[j]

ah now whimsey and of course I was teasing you too ;).

I agree that Corrie is not as goos as Shakespeare- it is a sad thing when people lose the joy of discovering culture for themselves.

Look at, for instance, the opera. You can now see the whole of the New York Met and Covent Garden seasons in your local cinema for £20, on a high definition broadcast on the big screen- in a far better seat than you can afford and with your own wine. That is an example of popular culture to me, not Corrie.

[whimsey]

J, I was being a bit sarky, or trying to! I do think, deep down in me right to the core of my principles, that no one is thick at all. There are different kinds of intelligence (intellectual, artistic, etc etc) which very probably need different types of educatio to bring out. But what holds people down is being born and bred in 'chavdom' - or what used to be called 'the lower orders' (etc).

But this is a controversial view these days. These days 'chav culture' is regarded as just as 'good' as (what I would call!) 'real culture' (Shakespeare, Bach, Rembrandt, Einstein etc). But this is, I would argue, simply middle class guilt coming out PLUS middle class convenience. I mean, how jolly convenient for the middle classes to say 'oh, Corrie is every bit as good as Hamlet' etc etc, because actually that means we don't have to bother to do anything about the chavs after all. They can lead their depressing, narrow lives, intellectually and culturally exiled from the middle classes, and, most conveniently of all, therefore unlikely to feel shortchanged too much by providing the middle classes with the services we like to be done for us (waitressing, hairdressing, mowing our lawns, etc etc etc).

[j]

"Unless you are sufficiently revolutionary in your views to believe that the lower class doesn't actually need to be chavs, and has as much inherent brainpower, statistically speaking, as the middle classes, and are confined to their chavdom only because their chav culture holds them down, I don't really see any way out of the impasse"

Oh Whimsey whatever happened to your lovely middle class manners?

Sometimes people make the case that in a closed system, following several generations of free education, all the clever kids will have made it out of poverty, and so those left are bound to be less able.

the case fails on three grounds: (a) we are not a closed system, those families moving here from Somalia sure haven't had generations of safe free schooling, have they? (b) people develop at different ages, so a bright woman born in 1965 who failed the 11 plus might have a bright child who can rise up the academic tree differently and (c) both genetics and environment mean that individual children can be very different from their individual parents.

Plus surely if Tim nice-but-dim is a friendly soul then he will get on with all comers. Once we remove the disturbed children, of course, but nobody gets on with them anyway.

As for academic advantage, if you get 3 Bs at A level, you'd better get them from a state school, not a private school if you want any favours at all at Uni ;).

[whimsey]

Caroline, the middle classes will never voluntarily mix their children with those working children who are not destined to rise out of their born class and ascend in to the nirvana of middle class professionalism. Or, to put into the vernacular, they won't put their precious kids into a chav school.

The middle classes are fine with letting in a select few working class children who, courtesy of their genetic mutation (sports), appear to be clever enough to warrant a place in the professional class, but those children, because they are a minority, will spend their school days surrounded by the dominant culture of the middle class children, and, indeed, be gradually embourgeoised themselves, even to the point of aspiring to Oxbridge for heaven's sake!, so they won't threaten the middle class children there.

But a 'thicko' middle class child dumped into a sink school, full of frightful chavs, would have a dreadful time of it.

The problem is that there are more clever middle class children than there are clever working class children, but more thicko working class children than thicko middle class children. So the middle classes have no option but to protect their thicko children by sending them to private school.

Unless you are sufficiently revolutionary in your views to believe that the lower class doesn't actually need to be chavs, and has as much inherent brainpower, statistically speaking, as the middle classes, and are confined to their chavdom only because their chav culture holds them down, I don't really see any way out of the impasse.

As I say, I don't think we can sort out the state education system until we get to grips with the infamy of the class system.

[j]

gipsy I agree with everything you say except the end. We will never end up paying less tax than now- because the system swells. More of it may go on different types of healthcare (less on cancers and diabetes, more on IVF) but tax always goes up, and up, and up...and if not, there's always the next London airport or some ego-memorial for the big boys...;)

[Caroline]

Whimsy, which century are you living in? Certainly not the 21st. While I am fully in favour of a return to the Grammars/Sec Moderns system, I find it revolting to suggest that it would somehow be beneath "dim" (as you put it) middle class children to have to (horrors) mix with the working classes at secondary school. Children should be placed at schools according to their abilities, period.

Back to Sarah's thought-provoking post: I am deeply uncomfortable with lotteries, but also find the current system to be inequitable. In this country, a child's educational prospects are a function of their parents' income and priorities. All children, bright or slow, rich or poor, should be receiving the education that maximizes their potential.

One way forward might simply be setting by ability, already at very early ages. This would benefit all children. The brightest would be sufficiently challenged, even in state schools, while the slower students would find the teaching pitched to their level.

[j]

what do we do with "thick middle class" children who ought to move down to make space for "bright working class" kids- not sure.

What makes a school a sink school? if it's ungovernable classes then surely the more tims nice-but-dim, the better?

A specialist academic school could select on entry from a narrow ability band. The others should be good enough for everyone outside that band- isn't that where we need to be?

I think I agree that dealing with child povery, gangs, discipline and terrible homes is what we need. Some (ok, not all) of our most obnoxious children are coping with memories of trauma or present home lives that don't bear thinking about.

[whimsey]

On a point of information, are schools allowed to accept donations in order to fund the hiring of more teachers? ie, if, say, the Parents Association of a school raised enough money to pay the salary of another teacher, is the school legally entitled to accept that money and hire that extra teacher, who could then start to reduce class size etc? Or, perhaps more byzantinely, (byzantinianly?), maybe the donation money could be used for something else, eg, paid into the maintenance budget, and then that budget could be 'cut' by the same amount, so that that amount could then be made available to the teaching staff budget?

I don't know how the schools funding rules work. I know that staff costs are the biggest cost - around 80% I believe of the overall budget?

[Gipsy]

>>Suggesting a lottery system is just avoiding the issue of adequate funding and providing the resources to ALL of the schools across the country

I agree. Personally - I'd happily pay more tax for more money to go into education. It would pay off in the long term - with education follows a whole host of other benefits - healthier, higher employment (indeed more likely to actually seek employment), lower crime rates and so forth. Eventually, we'd end up paying less tax than we do now.

[jen]

A lottery has to be the most ridiculous and irresponsible idea I have heard. It is already a postcode lottery in that the government can't seem to provide consistent good quality education across the board - but at least there are some rules governing these schools' admission policies. I admit that sometimes it isn't fair - we want our children to go to the local C of E school which is wildly over-subscribed, and someone with no denominational preference will 'win' a place over our family who goes to church fortnightly (just due to their geographical proximity) but at least the rules are there and you know how to play by them. We aren't priced out of the houses in the vicinity, it's just that there are a finite number of houses for sale, and it is prohibitively expensive to move, even to a house smaller than ours.

Incidentally, there is nothing educationally wrong with our local school - it has a similar wide social mix, but it just isn't a faith school, and is too large because the government hasn't given it a big enough budget to provide an additional teacher to split the class sizes up into manageable chunks, or the finance to build more accommodation for a growing student body. Leaving the (excellent) head teacher to struggle with what they are given.

The reason our local faith school IS so much better is that they are financially better off (thanks to the Diocese funding), and has an excellent head teacher who has driven the school from Special Measures to Outstanding in just 3 years.

Suggesting a lottery system is just avoiding the issue of adequate funding and providing the resources to ALL of the schools across the country, rather than the present 'solution' whereby the Government is relying on the Church (or synagogue, etc etc) to pick up the tab on the 'good' schools, and coasting along with all the rest of the schools, knowing that some people have no choice in what school they go to.

[whimsey]

What seems to bedevil our education system is the issue of class - ie, social class. A (state) school is the one place where the social classes can be said to meet on equal terms, as opposed to, say, an office, where the middle class folk run the place (in various and highly distinct internal categories of seniority of course) and the lower class folk clean it and serve the middle class professionals (type their letters, collect their post, cook their food etc etc).

But that classroom class-equality (for the pupils, that is - the adults in a school assort as above for an office) makes a school a very unusual place in society, and, of course, therefore, a very contentious one.

It raises huge questions about just what social classes we want in our society, and why. Do we actually want anyone to be 'working class' and if so, what kind of education is best for their children?

Conversely, to what extent is, or should, education be orthogonal to social class? It's generally accepted that a 'bright lower class person' should of course be given the opportunity to rise into the professional middle classes by dint of an academic education (the principle behind grammar schools), but the converse of that is whether or not an academic education is completely wasted on those middle-class children who aren't in the slightest capable of any intellectual reach.

To me, this has two implications. How do we design an education system such that the 'bright working class children' can reach their academic potential (and thereby their social potential - ie, cease to be working class and move into the professional middle class). But, more importantly, do we accept that some children, whatever their class, are inherently 'less academic' than others? If so, what do we do with them, education-wise and employment-wise?

Traditionally, we (the professional middle classes and upwards) find it comforting to think that the class/employment-deltas are also, for the vast majority, the education-deltas, and that all we need to do is make sure that the few 'sports' amongst the deltas who by some freak of nature seem to be quite clever actually, get a chance to rise up from the murk of the council estates, and that will do. The rest can comfortably go on serving the middle classes in the ways we enjoy them doing (mowing our lawns, serving us in shops and restaurants, typing our letters, emptying our rubbish bins, etc etc).(Some, irritatingly, however, have a degree of native cunning and become millionaires courtesy of their football skills, or their ability to get in to the Big Brother house, etc)

In this respect, therefore, the easiest cop-out for the middle classes is the two-tier grammar school/sec mod school, as that takes all the responsibility away. Grammars will catch any of the working class 'sports', and the rest can be taught bricklaying and typing in the secondary mods. What we do with the non-academic middle-class children is trickier. Most get packed off to minor public schools, don't they? Anything, surely, rather than be forced to mingle with the lower class children at the secondary mod - education equals they may be, but not, of course, their social equals.

Alternatively, we let geography preserve the social divides, and have comps in middle class areas populated only by middle class children, and comps in poorer areas for the lower class children.

The one thing that middle class parents just will not do is send their child to a sink comp where there are too many lower class, non-academic children.

To me, the real problem of the education system is the class system. Until we sort out the latter, we can't sort out the former.

[whimsey]

Jess, I don't think you get how utterly unacceptable it is for an education system to be run like a casino. It would be unacceptable in any country, however rich or poor. If we cannot run a country with some attempt at rationality, ie, having a rationale for the criteria by which decisions are made, then what on earth does it say about us? We might as well throw runes in the air and make decisions on where they fall, etc etc.

Any alternative whatsoever is better than a lottery, because it would be based on some kind of rational principle - one might not agree with that principle, eg, exam based selection, selection by wealth, etc - but at least it would indicate that there WAS a principle in operation.

And if there is sufficient opposition to whatever is the existing principle, then a.n.other principle can be put into place.

The comment that said the only useful thing about this appalling lottery idea is to set the middle classes into arms is possibly spot on. And yes, I quite agree too that adopting a lottery system would let the government off the hook completely - just what they want!

If the choice is 'lottery' vs 'existing system' then I'd still take 'existing system' because there is an attempt at a rational principle behind it based on catchment area.

However, of course, what we actually need is for every state school to be an excellent school, then it wouldn't matter which one your child went to.

Alternatively, I'd just give parents back the tax money that is their proportion of the schools budget, and let them spend it as they want on private schools, and let Adam Smith do his stuff. I belive the per capita for each child is around the five thousand pouds a year mark (it varies for age, doesn't it?). That would be a nice sum to have at one's disposal to spend on your child's education.

Would have to say no to lottery it would just be another opportunity for Government to opt out of responsibility of fulfilling a pledge of good schools for all which we will no doubt hear again over the next few weeks of party conferences. Lets expand the schools parents want their children to be in and provide more money for teachers, many could take the children if they could afford the staff. www.parents outloud.com

[j]

I think that we can agree that the system is broken at the moment.

Can I suggest a better system? well, yes. I can suggest that we dont let the government off this particular hook by gambling, literally, with who gets the unacceptable service. I think TSM has a good suggestion. I think academies could work. I have not given it enough care and research to make a judgment on the best solution, but I think it may well involve intensive social and academic education for some of our more traumatised children, quite possibly not in the same class as other kids until they are calmer and all caught up.

What is good about this idea is it stings us into realising what others are already tolerating. Poorer families rarely get a voice and it's their children who mainly suffer these schools. What this makes us see, is that nobody- neither us, nor them- should have to tolerate sink schools.

I suppose you could therefore just about argue that a lottery is useful, to generate sufficient middle class anger for the politicians to put this above the Olympics, the next London airport, and all the other macho stuff they think makes them famous. But in that case, sure, let's have an NHS lottery as well, and generate the same public anger and challenge on that.

It may also help to reconcile us to paying more tax, which I am afraid is the consequence of wanting better education. I'd pay it- and I dont have spare money.

[Jess]

It's nothing like the other things you suggest - if you don't get into the school you wanted, you get into another one. That's nothing like voting and not getting a vote or asking for the police and them not coming. I don't think you get it. And, as the other poster says, you don't answer the question.

[Ronni]

Hi Whimsey,
Interesting post - I can see you are annoyed, but don't see your alternative suggestion, as Sarah asked? As she said, it "sounds wrong", but it does make sense, at least I think so. She obviously does want education to be as good as possible for everyone - she says so - but is looking for how to address the problem of over-subscribed schools. What's your answer?

[whimsey]

"if you can suggest a fairer policy for everyone.."

Well, I certainly couldn't suggest a more irresponsible one, a more disgraceful one and a more defeatist one!

It is shameful, absolutely and utterly shameful that in one of the richest countries in the world, anyone, let alone someone who holds a responsible job on a responsble newspaper actually suggesting that the education system ought to be run like a casino.

A LOTTERY FOR A GOOD SCHOOL? Are you insane? Tell you what, let's have a lottery for health, as well, shall we? Anyone with a winning ticket gets their operation. Anyone else can just snuff it.

How about a lottery for voting? If you have a winning ticket, you get to vote. If not, tough.

Or a lottery for the judiciary system. If you have a winning ticket, the police will investigate your burglary. If not, tough.

I simply cannot believe that any intelligent person could seriously argue for a casino-based education system. It is vile and shameful and disgraceful.

And, as I said, worst of all, it is completely defeatist. It is giving in on education, it is saying 'there's nothing absolutely nothing we can do to improve schools, so we just won't bother.'

And does anyone seriously imagine that, if you hold a losing ticket, you are just going to say 'oh, fair cop then, I'll bung my kids into the local sink school....'.... ????

I don't think so.

[Theta Sigma Mummy]

"But if you can suggest a fairer policy for everyone, I'd like to know about it."

The 11+. Across the board. Everywhere. With enough grammar schools to take the top 25% every year, and the 'best' heads and department heads given bonuses to work in the secondary moderns. That would be fair - the kids who needed the most help would get the best teachers, the brightest kids would be able to work at a sensible pace for them, and given work and targets that stretch them.

[Gipsy]

I haven't paid over the odds for a house, or used a friend's address or family member or done anything else underhand, so it isn't just those who've tried to cheat the system who are appalled by the idea of a lottery system as you seem to imply.

A good school is possible and it isn't just down to the amount of funding or how well off the backgrounds of the pupils are (the latter seeming to be implicit in your article - only by going to school with all the other rich kids will you get a good education, regardless of whether it is a state or private school).

Both of our closest primary schools are highly sought after and doing very well, with above average sats and excellent ofsted reports and, more importantly, lots of satisfied and happy parents. Both also have above average numbers of children with English as a second language, and getting free school dinners, and both have high numbers of special needs students.

What both schools have, as opposed to the two other failing primary schools, are excellent headteachers. That's what we need more of and need to be investing in. Not using lotteries to try and spread the 'good' ie middle class pupils around (and they'll just go private anyway, so the lottery system simply won't work).